Why go to the Avengers to see movie magic when you can sit at home and watch pure movie magic gold?

My doubts about the moon landings have always been rooted in a strong belief much of the documented visuals, ie photos and film seem suspect. While many of my doubts revolve around photos, I thought I would first point out a few things that make little sense with the DAC film footage.

Before I start with my core argument, I thought it would be best to start with a simple example of what will form the basis of my argument. To do so, I have attached a great youtube link of re-mastered DAC footage of Apollo 11 and 12. (the title says Apollo 11 but includes Apollo 12 too)

A lot of this footage is very impressive (real or not) and while you should be able to see what I am talking about, I recommend you use a video editor for better clarity.

So, to start, I would like everyone to go to 1:16:55 of the video. It is a small 45 second clip from Apollo 12 of the Command module being filmed from the lunar module. On the surface, it is a very uneventful clip other than the fact the lighting is very poor resulting in an obscured view. However if you look closing, there appears to be a light source slightly below and to the right of the Command module. It can be seen around the 1:17:10 mark for a few seconds and much more clearly from 1:17:36 to 1:17:52 when the video is abruptly ended. If you use a video editor, and change the contrast, brightness, gain, gamma etc, the video becomes much clearer and that light source is there for the entire time varying in intensity. The question is what can be causing that light source? There is really no logical reason. It is not a reflection off the glass or camera lens. (a frame by frame analysis at 1:17:52 when the camera is moved shows the light moves with the CM not the lens or glass).

I would argue what we are seeing here is a failed attempt at a type of front screen projection. There are a few things that point to this. (apart from the abrupt ending) But it is better to have an understanding on how this front screen projection would work. It is known as Zoptic projection named after Zoran Perisic. Perisic seemingly came out of nowhere in 1975 with this technique using it the film Land of the Minotaur and famously Superman. (before that he had only an uncredited production role on the 2001, A Space Oddessy. ) Below is a very good video explaining this technique. (unfortunately video quality isn't great). Please take the time to watch in its entirety. It will give a very good understanding of what might be going on here.

Front screen, like rear screen projection, has one significant drawback. As seen in Superman, for example, it is almost impossible to match the foreground and background in terms of lighting and clarity. And the result is it doesn't look natural in many scenes. And this DAC footage of the CM is a good example. The background, ie the moon surface, is too dark versus the foreground CM. (how can the CM be lit up but not the moon surface below? ) As a result, any light sources or imperfections in the scotchlite screen may stand out. (there are many Apollo photos that show scotchlite imperfections in the dark skies). And the light you see in this DAC footage is either a failure with the scotchlite screen or a reflection off the top of the CM on to something on the foreground stage. The other big giveaway that this filming technique is being used is the fact the CM doesn't move from the same position on the Y and X axis. During the entire footage the CM doesn't budge from the same position. This is a very rudimentary use of the Zoptic technique. You see this rudimentary stationary technique used many times in the Apollo DAC footage. In this case, the moving background footage gives the impression/illusion the CM is moving from a level horizon standpoint in front of the LM to below and behind the LM. (or the LM is moving up and forward) Yet the camera is in a stationary/static position and the CM doesn't change X/Y coordinates. How is this possible? This footage lasts for close to 4 minutes if you account for the filming frames per second. This is miraculous.

Now you may ask why did they leave this footage in the public domain given the obvious issue with an unknown light source. Simple, the original footage seemed obscured enough they probably felt nobody would notice. They clearly didn't anticipate technological advancements. In fact, in my examination of the photos, the best examples of 'suspect' photos are ones that have been obscured by sun glare etc. It is almost as if they ignored the obscured photos for any potential "issues". But when you strip away the glare, which you can now do, there seems to be many "issues". (But this is best left for another topic post)

This CM footage is just one small example of what I would like to discuss in this thread. But before I get to some of the more interesting clips, are there any questions or comments that I can clarify before moving forward?

A lot of this footage is very impressive (real or not) and while you should be able to see what I am talking about, I recommend you use a video editor for better clarity.

So, to start, I would like everyone to go to 1:16:55 of the video. It is a small 45 second clip from Apollo 12 of the Command module being filmed from the lunar module. On the surface, it is a very uneventful clip other than the fact the lighting is very poor resulting in an obscured view. However if you look closing, there appears to be a light source slightly below and to the right of the Command module. It can be seen around the 1:17:10 mark for a few seconds and much more clearly from 1:17:36 to 1:17:52 when the video is abruptly ended. If you use a video editor, and change the contrast, brightness, gain, gamma etc, the video becomes much clearer and that light source is there for the entire time varying in intensity.

You are attempting to replicate Jack White's failed "analysis" of Apollo images by doing the same tweaking. When you do this the aspect is changed drastically and not for good reasons. I'm not going through the hassle of changing those properties as they will show me nothing. I already did this ONCE on YT with images of the sun (A12) that when tweaked proved it was an artificial light. Even though I did exactly as "he" directed I saw no discernable change other than the basic color scheme. There is no "light source" in your clip, flat out.

Quote

The question is what can be causing that light source?

Your tweaking caused it.

Quote

There is really no logical reason. It is not a reflection off the glass or camera lens. (a frame by frame analysis at 1:17:52 when the camera is moved shows the light moves with the CM not the lens or glass).

It is the tweaking.

Quote

I would argue what we are seeing here is a failed attempt at a type of front screen projection. There are a few things that point to this. (apart from the abrupt ending) But it is better to have an understanding on how this front screen projection would work. It is known as Zoptic projection named after Zoran Perisic. Perisic seemingly came out of nowhere in 1975 with this technique using it the film Land of the Minotaur and famously Superman. (before that he had only an uncredited production role on the 2001, A Space Oddessy. ) Below is a very good video explaining this technique. (unfortunately video quality isn't great). Please take the time to watch in its entirety. It will give a very good understanding of what might be going on here.

Front screen, like rear screen projection, has one significant drawback. As seen in Superman, for example, it is almost impossible to match the foreground and background in terms of lighting and clarity. And the result is it doesn't look natural in many scenes. And this DAC footage of the CM is a good example. The background, ie the moon surface, is too dark versus the foreground CM. (how can the CM be lit up but not the moon surface below? ) As a result, any light sources or imperfections in the scotchlite screen may stand out. (there are many Apollo photos that show scotchlite imperfections in the dark skies). And the light you see in this DAC footage is either a failure with the scotchlite screen or a reflection off the top of the CM on to something on the foreground stage.

This is all nonsense.

Quote

The other big giveaway that this filming technique is being used is the fact the CM doesn't move from the same position on the Y and X axis. During the entire footage the CM doesn't budge from the same position. This is a very rudimentary use of the Zoptic technique. You see this rudimentary stationary technique used many times in the Apollo DAC footage. In this case, the moving background footage gives the impression/illusion the CM is moving from a level horizon standpoint in front of the LM to below and behind the LM. (or the LM is moving up and forward) Yet the camera is in a stationary/static position and the CM doesn't change X/Y coordinates. How is this possible? This footage lasts for close to 4 minutes if you account for the filming frames per second. This is miraculous.

Another failure for you, it is called computer aided orbital trajectory. What you expect is wrong. When did you train in simulators?

Quote

Now you may ask why did they leave this footage in the public domain given the obvious issue with an unknown light source. Simple, the original footage seemed obscured enough they probably felt nobody would notice. They clearly didn't anticipate technological advancements. In fact, in my examination of the photos, the best examples of 'suspect' photos are ones that have been obscured by sun glare etc. It is almost as if they ignored the obscured photos for any potential "issues". But when you strip away the glare, which you can now do, there seems to be many "issues". (But this is best left for another topic post)

This CM footage is just one small example of what I would like to discuss in this thread. But before I get to some of the more interesting clips, are there any questions or comments that I can clarify before moving forward?

The film is left in public records because there is nothing "wrong" with it, just your incorrect expectation of what it "should" look like and your poor/non existent-- image/video analysis. I do hope you bring something better than tweaking the parameters of images/video because they won't hunt.

Logged

Truth needs no defense. Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.Eugene Cernan

I am not tweaking anything. I am suggesting you use a video editor to see the video more clearly not to see the light. The light is already there on the original and remastered video. But if you change the brightness, for example, you will see the CM in its entirety and the moon surface below. Are you suggesting I am 'tweaking" the moon surface and CM into the video?

And with regards to computer aided orbital trajectory, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact a stationary/fixed/static camera can follow the movement of an object from in front of it , to below it, and behind (other examples to follow) without moving. (are you thinking somehow the two crafts are rotating in unison? If so, that doesn't mean that window used for filming rotates in a manner that keeps the same view, not even close) In this video clip, it appears the camera does not move yet is able to capture the entirety of the CM's movement while the CM remains at the same X/Y coordinates in the video frame.

Try taking video out an airplane window as a plane flies by going in the opposite direction. Zero chance you can do this without constantly re adjusting the camera direction. Yet in this clip, the CM starts out on the horizon in front of the LM and ends up below and almost passing beneath the LM. And all this is captured with a camera that doesn't move and the CM remains static in the center of the frame. Doesn't seem logical to me. And it isn't. It is an illusion created by the moving background. I will show you much more compelling examples in follow up posts.

I see that Jack White's repeatedly debunked, dismal fails are doing the rounds again.....

Sigh... When are these HBs going to come up with something new!?

Logged

► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Pity you haven't bothered to show us the results of your messing with the digital rendering of the film footage. Until you do all we have here is another case of the emperor's new clothes.

Pity you didn't pay attention to the rest of the footage that shows details of the lunar surface not known prior to the landings, as well as views of Earth with their unique temporal fingerprint that match the meteorogical evidence.

I've said this many times to conspiracy nuts regarding still images but the same counts here: mess around with an image and all you do is prove that you can mess around with an image. You don't prove something is there that never was.

Aaaannnddd here's the predicted fringe reset. Absent for a while, hoping that the heat had cooled off and then bounce back with another bit of oft-debunked nonsense.

My suggestion is to not engage on this, but to insist that the OP returns to the other threads and addresses the outstanding questions.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2019, 02:06:30 AM by Zakalwe »

Logged

"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

FWIW, what he's seeing is the reflection of the bright CSM on the glass, regardless of what he says.

e2a:

Here it is:

The 'frame by frame analysis' (ie playing it very slowly) of the part where the camera moves shows exactly what it should. Of course the reflection moves with the CSM - moving the camera isn't going to change the laws of physics as far as reflected light is concerned, and it is too far away for the movement of a few inches to affect it - the relative distances are barely affected.

You'll get back to the other ones you just abandon when you find you can't actually argue at all?

We still await your mathematical evidence of LM instability drawn from the memo you presented as evidence of it.

Logged

"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!" - Dara O'Briain

I am not tweaking anything. I am suggesting you use a video editor to see the video more clearly not to see the light. The light is already there on the original and remastered video. But if you change the brightness, for example, you will see the CM in its entirety and the moon surface below. Are you suggesting I am 'tweaking" the moon surface and CM into the video?

When you adjust the image parameters you most certainly ARE tweaking the whole image. As obm (and Drewid) have taken more effort than I and shown your "light" nothing more than a reflection off the window.

Quote

And with regards to computer aided orbital trajectory, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact a stationary/fixed/static camera can follow the movement of an object from in front of it , to below it, and behind (other examples to follow) without moving. (are you thinking somehow the two crafts are rotating in unison? If so, that doesn't mean that window used for filming rotates in a manner that keeps the same view, not even close) In this video clip, it appears the camera does not move yet is able to capture the entirety of the CM's movement while the CM remains at the same X/Y coordinates in the video frame.

Once a spacecraft is in an orbital speed ("weightless") then only external forces will affect its orientation. Should the astronauts not move neither will the spacecraft move, should the RCS system not fire neither will the spacecraft. What CSM movement is visible in the video, other than approaching? Have you ever watched a spacecraft approaching the ISS? You really are bad at this.

Quote

Try taking video out an airplane window as a plane flies by going in the opposite direction. Zero chance you can do this without constantly re adjusting the camera direction. Yet in this clip, the CM starts out on the horizon in front of the LM and ends up below and almost passing beneath the LM. And all this is captured with a camera that doesn't move and the CM remains static in the center of the frame. Doesn't seem logical to me. And it isn't. It is an illusion created by the moving background. I will show you much more compelling examples in follow up posts.

The actions of a airplane flying and a orbiting spacecraft are far different, the rest of us realize this, only you extend your notions from a an Earthly experience to a orbital experience.

This will be my last post in this thread, comment if you must.

Logged

Truth needs no defense. Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.Eugene Cernan

this clip, the CM starts out on the horizon in front of the LM and ends up below and almost passing beneath the LM. And all this is captured with a camera that doesn't move and the CM remains static in the center of the frame. Doesn't seem logical to me.

jrk really, really doesn't understand that the CSM is much much nearer to the LM than the ground. The lunar surface is passing beneath them at, what, 7000km an hour? The distance between the the two vessels remains relatively small in comparison so of course it looks like the ground beneath them moves much more. It's basic "learning about the real world by going outside" stuff.

Here's a terrestrial example showing the view from the Red Arrows cockpit.

Look how fast the ground moves yet the aircraft hardly move. OMG they must be fake.

How about this example of the ISS filmed from the shuttle:

Same thing. Two space craft relatively close together with the ground beneath them moving very fast - you even get the horizon appearing.

Or even, God forbid, the same thing happening with an Apollo craft, first in Earth orbit:

then in lunar orbit:

=124

Your post says as much about your inability to think in 3 dimensions as it does your laziness in thinking through what you're seeing. You said it yourself:

Quote

It is an illusion created by the moving background

A background that is much, much further away than the CSM.

Seriously, think things through before you waste your time on this tripe.

If you use a video editor, and change the contrast, brightness, gain, gamma etc, the video becomes much clearer and that light source is there for the entire time varying in intensity.

So you tweaked sliders you didn't understand on footage wose sourse you didn't understand to get a result you didn't understand but simply liked the look of. Seems legit. (NOT)

What "original" footage did you use? Because no original footage was digital. Did you account for the compression algorithms used to digitise the original footage and how exactly they might affect image integrity? Of course you didn't because you were not aware that those were even a thing. And did you know that those very compression algorithms are known to introduce artefacts into both still and video footage? Of course you didn't because you haven't a clue about those until I just mentioned them.

Were you aware that no amount of futzing around with sliders cannot add any extra information to any image under any circumstance other than what was already contained in the original? Nope, not a chance.

Were you aware that taking the low-res raw DAC footage up to 4k resolution requires interpolation of extra data (i.e. guesses)? No, you didn't know that either.

The other big giveaway that this filming technique is being used is the fact the CM doesn't move from the same position on the Y and X axis. During the entire footage the CM doesn't budge from the same position.

Why should it? Really. Why do you think it should? Do you think the LM and CM should be zooming around like WW2 dogfighters? Really?

That is simply not how orbital rendezvous works. Whatever gave you that idea?

This is a very rudimentary use of the Zoptic technique. You see this rudimentary stationary technique used many times in the Apollo DAC footage. In this case, the moving background footage gives the impression/illusion the CM is moving from a level horizon standpoint in front of the LM to below and behind the LM. (or the LM is moving up and forward)

Yet the camera is in a stationary/static position and the CM doesn't change X/Y coordinates. How is this possible? This footage lasts for close to 4 minutes if you account for the filming frames per second. This is miraculous.

The are in orbit moving at the same velocity (approx) over the terrain below. They shouldn't move relative to each other.

This is how dumb the question you are asking is.

If I am in the passenger seat of a car and I can see the lanscape whizzing past at 60 mph, how come the driver doesn't change position relative to me as well?

Now you may ask why did they leave this footage in the public domain given the obvious issue with an unknown light source. Simple, the original footage seemed obscured enough they probably felt nobody would notice. They clearly didn't anticipate technological advancements.

Did "they"? Who are "they"? And why are "they simultaneously super skilled at cover-ups and useless at them?

In fact, in my examination of the photos, the best examples of 'suspect' photos are ones that have been obscured by sun glare etc. It is almost as if they ignored the obscured photos for any potential "issues". But when you strip away the glare, which you can now do, there seems to be many "issues". (But this is best left for another topic post)

Once again, your "expertise" consists of pushing sliders around that you do not understand, in applications you do not understand generating results you do not understand. That does not wash here. To us that is akin to doing a rain dance to make it rain. That is the depth of your ignorance on the topic at hand.

This CM footage is just one small example of what I would like to discuss in this thread. But before I get to some of the more interesting clips, are there any questions or comments that I can clarify before moving forward?

Why not at all. Your initial foray into the topic is clearly misinformed, ignorant nonsense. Whether you think you can recover from that flat out failure is your problem to asses, not mine.

Personally, were I you, and given the expertise in the subject matter available on this site, and given your obvious lack of understanding of the topics at hand, I would beat a hasty retreat before it becomes a rout. On every such topic you have heretofore introduced you have been roundly been beaten by the people here. So much so that you have abandoned those topics and raised a new one. This topic will be no different.

We have already established you incompetence in image and video analysis. You want to dig the hole deeper? Feel free.